Redis is trying to take over the all of the OSS Redis libraries
twitter.com
twitter.com
> Looks like Redis is trying to take over the all the OSS Redis libraries.
> Jedis, Lettuce, and redis-py are down, they are now threatening redis-rs (link in reply).
There's no link in the post, and I don't have a link to the referenced reply, but I'm guessing the link is https://github.com/redis-rs/redis-rs/issues/1419
Can we please make this SNS disappear?
I guess they are unlikely to add any features to support alternative servers.
Redis™*
*Redis is a trademark of Redis Labs
The dumb thing is they insisted the footnote be on the first webpage Redis™ was displayed, as-if I had control over the order of the pages people viewed on the website.
Since then I’ve started removing Redis as a dependency from as many projects as I can.
If I'm not wrong looking at the trademark, database, they have registered them recently (2018,2019, and a lot very recently 2023) in a very predatory move.
In my opinion, this usage should be considered legitimate based on prior art or something like that.
Anyway, in all case I hope that projects will not give up to this asshole move from redis lab.
Maybe it might be possible to rename the project, but also forbid redis lab to use the name of the projects it had targeted. Like a poison pill. I think that it is legitimate for them to consider that an usage of name s like redis_py by Redis would be counterfeiting of well known brand of these projects. In the end, it might be assumed that it is the fault of Redis to have not enforced any copyright or branding on these projects for more than 10 years despite the fact that they couldn't have ignored their existence and success.
I'm even quite sure that we can find a publication of Redis lab with how-to use any of these open source projects...
How much are you willing to pay to finance their attorneys?
Whether somebody's comfortable finding out is, of course, a different matter.
But regarding the history of free software that is made of individuals fighting the overreach of predatory corporations, I will be very saddened if everyone of all these projects would give up...
Maybe the fsf or software conservancy can assist some of the projects if they were to ask it?
$50 might get you 5 minutes of an attorneys time. For someone to fight this in court will in the hundreds of hours of billable time. None of these open source client library maintainers is likely going to be able to fund that.
> Redis lab is not that big as a company so they might not be able to hire top notch lawyers.
Redis is a company with a billion dollar valuation that has raised hundreds of millions of dollars, they can afford good lawyers.
Prior art for redis_py clearly belongs to Redis, regardless of when the trademark is actually filed. This is because Redis had to have existed before redis_py.
I'm not suggesting any particular maintainer *should* decide to fight, or even consider whether they want to try - that's very much up to them - but assuming that fighting is untenable in advance without exploring options is something I'd consider an unnecessarily unfortunate outcome.
Is it ever safe to use a trademark name? Will all packages now have to be generic enough to imply the product for which they connect? It”s not a Java/AWS/Redis/Wordpress/Shopify extension, but a thingbob, which just so happens to connect to That-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Named.
>you may only name it "XYZ for Redis™"
However, I'm not sure where courts would land on a name like "redis-rs". There are arguments on both sides, and I'm not sure if there's enough case law to make the legal outcome clear.
If I was in charge of any of these libraries, I would replace any mention of Redis with Valkey and move on.
This would be in the interests of the current market leader though - eg. Redis.
Which in turn would create the filename redis_py.py
Which would immediately raise the question why not a dot.
redis.py
> There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things.
https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon/issues/47
The project was renamed to "tauthon".
I see Redis Inc. have decided to go full Nagios.
Never go full Nagios.
Though admittedly Nagios' attempt to pull similar assholery wrt CPAN did end up being a source of some amusement to me: http://p3rl.org/Nagios::Plugin
I hope the http://crates.io team react similarly.
(Referencing https://github.com/redis-rs/redis-rs/issues/1419 )
I'm sure a lot of these legal threats would go away very quickly if the possibility of a large scale legal battle was on the horizon every single time. Or at least, they'd be a lot more willing to settle quickly if their opponent was fairly evenly matched resources wise.
And yeah, I wish FSF or some other, strong and well-funded org would be more "broken glass" and take issue with even the tiniest of legal fights over OSS.
One more reason to move to valkey i guess.
It looks to be about providing support to paying users of Redis in a library that doesn't have much goals.
And they offered to pay for it to do it.
> These are not my words nor the message I want to convey. In a private call, I said that it feels strange to use the brand name for a library that keeps supporting all the forks indefinitely and does not grant compatibility for the product itself. I also said that it does not make a lot of sense to pretend to rename a crate and replace it with the same software or an alternative library, thus creating confusion and frustration. However, companies do consider protecting their trademarks where their reputation is challenged. This does not need any explanation. In my private call with Armin, I highlighted that. Of course, there is no plan to take action regarding the trademark, but to find a reasoned and agreed-upon way forward to avoid introducing another Redis Rust client library where changes, improvements, and innovation can be introduced.
So basically the point is to make thinly veiled threats of copyright enforcement to „agree to a solution“.
The Mafia also agrees with you on a payment plan after highlighting that a fire would be a shame in your establishment.
Your response is alittle over emotional.
> That quote even says they're not looking to take action over the trademark.
Yeah, he’s basically saying „also, we think you’re infringing but we won’t have to enforce that, right? I’m sure we can come to an agreement, wink wink“.
Maybe I’m reading this completely wrong but this reminder is basically a threat to sue you to death if you don’t comply.
IMO you are because your attempting to "read between the lines" and add things that aren't there while ignoring things that contradictory to what this hypothetical lawsuit would include.
He says they don't want to cause a mess of renaming, or forking because it would be worse off and confusing for everyone
Trademark-as-a-Weapon is becoming too common now. Are we going to be forced to use legally distinct (and confusingly different) names for all our libraries now to defend against this nonsense? Pick projects based on the brand protection posture of the licensors? What a waste of time.
OSS authors can add malware too.
Like IBM with Redhat, they tried to overstep their position and exert undue control, so the community rejected their status as BDFL. Now IBM has Rocky and Liberty to deal with, and Redis has Valkey rapidly gaining credibility as the go-to solution. The social contract of FOSS goes both ways, and greed is righteously punished with the loss of power.
Also, there's the thing where these other projects have been using the name since forever, so there's already a history of non-enforcement.
That is part of it....these projects are older than the trademark, by quite a bit.
[0]: https://trademarks.justia.com/878/05/redis-87805452.html
Postgres or SQLite for example.
What does a car do that you can't trivially do with something else ? Like a boat or an airplane ?
You simply cannot compare an in-memory Key-Value store, to a RDBS. And that's on a conceptual level. If you then consider performance, network latency and the guarantees, we're absolutely comparing airplanes to donkeys: You wouldn't use an airplane to climb up a rough mountain, and you certainly wouldn't prefer a donkey to travel to the other side of the world.
On the other hand Redis is a bad database so I would say the use cases don't overlap.
SQLite supports atomic operations - the key requirement of a message queue.
All this to say that, yes, you theoretically CAN use SQLite as a message queue. But atomic operations are usually WAY lower on the "must have" list for a message queue than other parameters.
The easiest way you could verify this is by looking at the guarantees provided by some of the most known MsgQueues.
This is what ensures only one reader gets a message. SQLite has it, redis does not.
That is a claim not an argument, and again it can't be a shared queue because no networking.
Or do you believe Redis doesn't have atomic operations?
Provide a payment infrastructure to OS developers, otherwise you are left without options.
Anyone can fork your hard work,
anyone with more resources than you can push you out of your own work and expropriate it,
noone pays for your hard work.
When someone realizes this and changes the license the hardhat OS advocates turn against you and fork your hard work, essentially trying to deprive you of any income.
Who on fucking earth thinks this is a good model? And who benefits, anyone dared to ask the question?
For a starter: Force github to implement proper monetization options, that is visible and allows the creators to ask a sum for their work.
Your work will remain open source, buy you must pay a low sum. If anyone is against this, then go, create your own project and don't use publicly available code.
No one forces you to make your project OSS. It's a trade-off you should consider carefully before you do. But because people keep doing it, it's clear there are massive benefits to it.
And many open source projects are just modules extracted from the company code base to gather developer mindset and to reduce costs by harnessing outside developers. It's, as such, a fine model as it is. Rug-pulling and exertion of power through stupid lawyer BS is what kills those projects if anything. If people are not paying for your OSS addons, perhaps they aren't that good after all.
Rather, it is an open collaboration between companies, which realize that it will lower their cost, while not being a competitive advantage for either party. It improves the profit margin for everyone.
What you're proposing is to convert Github into a small-business platform that sells "open source" software products, which is entirely different.